I thought the F-102A was the first area ruled design. Nonetheless the Germans did actually theorize it, they just never made it into an actual design.

I dont think it works simply that way. Engines on the F-15 likely use less gas ie rpm for the same speed. The F-4 for example also has more range than an F-104, or the F-18/Eurofighter (which has comparable engines) compared to a JAS-39 or a T-50.

The advantage of two powerplants is that you increase the power per weight more proportionate to the volume of the space used. As you increase volume your surface area is minimized for the workload, therefore a twin engien design has advantages for hauling loads further or faster. With each engine the relative complexity of design and maintenance costs increase. Therefore twin engine fighters are a design risk in and of themselves, will the cost-benefits of the second engine be an efficient increase in both workload and complexity? A three engine fighter would further increase the power to weight advantage, but with the decidedly unbalancing factor of more disadvantage due to increased complexity. Its all about the cost-benefit tradeoffs.

When is the last time you saw a three-engine jet design proposal? Seems like the F-108 was the last.

From what I’ve seen on videoes they look like sa-16’s/igla-1.

Our nice friends the saudis are supposedly supplying the sunni insurgents the igla-1 – aka sa-16 – they’ve obtained through romanian middlemen. Its slower than stinger, less sensitive seeker-wise, but has about a quarter more mile of range and is regarded as a rugged weapon.

The only reason they want F-18F is because we package the JASSM into the deal. I still think its a bit expensive for a country like Australia to replace their flexible attack force with a kludge of a dud program. They could of had a better all-around kit using F-15E and JASSM, but for less total program cost. Those Aussies are such dumbasses.

Figure, too, that alot of politicians are business-corporate dropout flunkies that believe in revenue streams rather than real accounting. They know that spending X this year means that X+Y next year will be an easier sell. But spending X this year for Z next year is a hard sell to a legislature.

They should of had overwing pylons for AAM’s like on the Jaguar.

Su-34s are the only modern aircraft that is very similar to the F-111 in role and configuration, but of course they are not really in the picture due to the major differences to what we already have, and politics.

If you want legs and a good set of shoulders they do make the F-15E in several export versions; some better than the base E model, some worse. They’ve got the ability to haul Harpoon missiles and all sorts of fancy load outs if the buyer is willing to pay for the software. Hell, your government might even want to just buy up some of the old F-14D’s for the meantime. We’re not using them for anything important right now. That should give you around fifty airframes.